of course he thinks that his beliefs are, by some metric, innately superior to all other beliefs; if he didn't then he wouldn't think those things - he would think other things, instead

I agree with you there, naturally to some degree, I must assess my own opinions above those held by others in order for me to believe in them. But, by any means, that doesn't mean I can't value the fact others hold different opinions.

It's quite pretentious of you to decide which opinion is innately right or wrong.
That's not a fact, that's simply your way of seeing things.

Pouring endless money into defense at the expense of other social programs has crippled us economically. We garner very little tangible benefit and suffer the immense costs of the overwhelming majority of most NATO operations. It is a huge amount of money that has done little except continue to push the arms race forward.

Stripping money out of education has placed us extremely far behind in terms of the abilities of our children. We have kids who don't have the slightest understanding of how our political system works, or even more rudimentary things like how to perform basic service for their motor vehicles or use an oven.

Removing all liability and oversight of business resulted in an economic collapse which we have stilled failed to claw our way out of. This was a lesson we should have learned sometime shortly after the industrial revolution. You ALWAYS need strict controls over businesses, as they are inherently greedy objects that are made more greedy the instant they go public. They are dangerous and have sufficient funds to alter the course of our democracy and some fucking morons want LESS controls for them because they believe that the magical free market will save us. They have their opinion, and it is wrong.

These things hurt us in very real ways and have no discernible benefits.

I feel like I'd do a poor job arguing for something I don't believe in myself. However, I believe that it's important to accept the fact that others view the world in a different manner, and to outright discredit someone's opinion as pure falsity just unsettles me.

what about when facts disagree with your opinion? like people who believe in creationism

what about when facts disagree with your opinion? like people who believe in creationism

While I do believe you should respect their beliefs, yes, there is pretty clear scientific evidence that proves that creationism is in-fact incorrect.
There is, however, no irrefutable scientific evidence pertaining to the three issues Gunfox brought up, making those opinions, not facts.

While I do believe you should respect their beliefs, yes, there is pretty clear scientific evidence that proves that creationism is in-fact incorrect.
There is, however, no irrefutable scientific evidence pertaining to the three issues Gunfox brought up, making those opinions, not facts.

Except these are well documented facts supported by evidence. Unless you can explain to us why we need to have the strongest Military in the world when we haven't been in a direct conflict with a major world power since World War 2. Or why for such a rich country we have a lower adult literacy rate than Cuba. Or how the existence of Rockefeller or the Big Four don't directly contradict the belief that a free market is self regulatory.

Except these are well documented facts supported by evidence. Unless you can explain to us why we need to have the strongest Military in the world when we haven't been in a direct conflict with a major world power since World War 2. Or why for such a rich country we have a lower adult literacy rate than Cuba. Or how the existence of Rockefeller or the Big Four don't directly contradict the belief that a free market is self regulatory.

You'd need a lot more information to make it a proven fact. And, you'd have to realize that a lot of the information can be dependent upon other factors.

Otherwise, for example, I'd be able to say, "It is a fact that Stalinism doesn't work because the Soviet Union collapsed". While the collapse of the Soviet Union might make a good argument against the effectiveness of Stalinism, it, by no means, proves that the fact that Stalinism is incapable of working.

Likewise, as a more relevant example, someone in support of a larger military budget could spin the situation of our lack of any major military actions in their favor. They could say that, because of the size of our military, other nations have been hesitant to provoke the wrath of the United States, and, because of this, significant conflicts have been avoided. Keep in mind I'm playing devil's advocate with this one, and I don't actually support the further expansion of the US military budget. However, I don't like to kid myself into believing that my opinions are purely and unconditionally correct, and I'm willing to look at things from other viewpoints.

The list is endless. I'm not playing this game anymore. Coddling the right wing fuckwads has destroyed us.

Once again, everything you just stated is your own personal opinion. Given that I agree with what you said, it doesn't make it right or wrong, it makes it an opinion we both share. There are people out there who would disagree with you about all of those things and have a reason for doing so.

Pouring endless sums of money into defense definitely benefits our military industrial complex at the expense of the people they're innately killing for profit. Stripping money out of education benefits the taxpayers at the expense of the children of future generations who won't have the quality of education they did. Removing all liability and oversight of businesses benefits the businesses themselves at the expense of the taxpayers and the consumers.

Every policy decision benefits and hurts something. You could argue that the "correct" policy would be the one that would benefit the biggest majority, and while being "correct" it would still merely be your opinion because there would still be someone somewhere that would disagree with you because it may negatively affect them. The other question at hand is will the policy in question hurt the minority populous too much, or will they survive its after-effects?

The point I'm trying to make here is while you and I personally feel that we need to cut defense, fund education more, etc. It's still merely our opinions because the only reason we hold those beliefs is because they would ultimately benefit us. We don't care about who would be hurt as a result of those actions because all we're worried about is ourselves. Now while that may come across as cynical on our part, it could be a FACT that it would benefit the greater majority of our society in the end.

The world is a lot less black and white than some people may think. What sounds good on paper may not play out well when put into action. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't give it a try, because we'll never know until we actually try something.

But people are afraid to do that nowadays. All our elected officials are afraid to change anything because they might isolate voters and not be reelected. So the basis of our problems stems from the flaws of a democratic system of government.

I get what you're saying and I sympathize with it, but the solution to our economic and social problems goes WAAAAAAAAAY higher than persuading government officials to enact these policy changes. The corruption runs too deep and everybody is afraid to actually change anything. I don't have a solution though, because what rational solution is there?

Once again, everything you just stated is your own personal opinion. Given that I agree with what you said, it doesn't make it right or wrong, it makes it an opinion we both share. There are people out there who would disagree with you about all of those things and have a reason for doing so.

Pouring endless sums of money into defense definitely benefits our military industrial complex at the expense of the people they're innately killing for profit. Stripping money out of education benefits the taxpayers at the expense of the children of future generations who won't have the quality of education they did. Removing all liability and oversight of businesses benefits the businesses themselves at the expense of the taxpayers and the consumers.

Every policy decision benefits and hurts something. You could argue that the "correct" policy would be the one that would benefit the biggest majority, and while being "correct" it would still merely be your opinion because there would still be someone somewhere that would disagree with you because it may negatively affect them. The other question at hand is will the policy in question hurt the minority populous too much, or will they survive its after-effects?

The point I'm trying to make here is while you and I personally feel that we need to cut defense, fund education more, etc. It's still merely our opinions because the only reason we hold those beliefs is because they would ultimately benefit us. We don't care about who would be hurt as a result of those actions because all we're worried about is ourselves. Now while that may come across as cynical on our part, it could be a FACT that it would benefit the greater majority of our society in the end.

The world is a lot less black and white than some people may think. What sounds good on paper may not play out well when put into action. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't give it a try, because we'll never know until we actually try something.

But people are afraid to do that nowadays. All our elected officials are afraid to change anything because they might isolate voters and not be reelected. So the basis of our problems stems from the flaws of a democratic system of government.

I get what you're saying and I sympathize with it, but the solution to our economic and social problems goes WAAAAAAAAAY higher than persuading government officials to enact these policy changes. The corruption runs too deep and everybody is afraid to actually change anything. I don't have a solution though, because what rational solution is there?

So yeah.

I think a better way to discuss this would be to ask what exactly Gunfox means by "wrong". In what ways are those things "wrong"? It seems a bit ambiguous.